Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Dec 2, 2012 9:20pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

"You can go all the way back to the very first one..."

Well, for the most part. Actually, a big chunk of 2007, most of 2008, almost all of 2009-2010, and some of 2011 are missing on the dead.net page. They just disappeared one day and have never been restored, which probably indicates how unimportant this feature is to the dead.net overseers.
You can access many of the missing pages through this site, though:
http://deadpieshop.wordpress.com/
And, if you'd like to zone in on a particular era, like late '72, you can use this list:
http://deadessays.blogspot.com/2009/11/deadnet-tapers-section-index.html
It hasn't been updated in a year, though.

You're right, Lemieux's writeups were a lot more detailed when he started; less so these days. (Though he was back to form last week!) In the first year he also picked lots of non-circulating stuff, but no more; in fact, he tends to pick stuff he's picked before. He also picks big chunks of sets now (usually half a set at a time, sometimes whole sets), which is generous. (I doubt much time or thought goes into it, though!)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Dec 2, 2012 10:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

Just looking at the wide angle, D.L. seems to have squandered some (much) goodwill he enjoyed earlier in his tenure with the community he ostensibly serves. I don't know why, as I haven't been a frequent visitor to Deadnet in many years. I did briefly meet him before the Knick '09 Dead show and he was more then generous in answering my 6-24-70 questions. The grumbling regarding his choices for releases, or the quality of his work declining to some or the shabby way that, as you point out, he tends to the maintenance of his media on Deadnet, does not paint a picture of someone striving forward with purpose. After I read how little Phil cares about new releases or even GD's music overall these days was disheartening. That he had not even listened to any E '72 says it all to me. I wonder the effect they had on D.L.? Maybe we are collectively living up to our obsessive and cranky nature, but my gut tells me otherwise. Something is not quite right in the Archivist chair.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Dec 3, 2012 2:53am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

I'm not sure how much DL's reputation has declined, if any. My complaints with the Road Trips/Dave's Picks series have more to do with the limited format & release restrictions (probably out of his control) than with the actual picks. I did complain about some of the E72 mixes, but that was Norman's end more than DL's.
I do have more of a grievance with the way the Taper's Section has been going - although more actual music is included than when it began, indexing the picks over the last year I did it was sheer drudgery because almost everything was something he'd picked before & nothing was new or surprising anymore; it seems like he's been picking stuff on autopilot - so it defeated a lot of the point of the Taper's Section for me - though I'm sure other listeners get more value out of it. Why half the Taper's Section entries got wiped off the dead.net page, who can say; it may have nothing to do with DL.
Aside from publicizing releases with his little videos, probably a lot of the archivist's work takes place out of the public eye - digitizing reels, meetings with corporate, etc - apparently putting releases together takes a lot of time. Like Latvala, I'd bet he proposes more ideas for releases that get shot down. But I'd also guess the GD office culture promotes a certain lackadaisical attitude among its employees...
He does seem to make an effort to answer questions, do occasional Q&A sessions - keeping things somewhat open, aside from the natural secrecy surrounding releases. There is a certain glib 'officialese' from him sometimes, but that could be a personality thing.

Probably several of the subjects in the New Yorker article are wishing they'd said something different! But I can understand Phil considering old GD recordings to be of mere curiosity value to him, & a waste of time to listen to. Like Garcia, he probably just hears the mistakes & missed intentions! "Oh, why didn't we..."
At least he went through & listened to a lot of stuff back in the '90s, which is more than the others did - Weir has never bothered at all, that I recall. (Weir has fond memories of '89/90, so maybe he listened to some of that. And Phil did have complimentary things to say about the E72 tour back when he released Hundred Year Hall.)

That the Dead don't bother with their own releases probably frees Lemieux more than anything, compared with the shackles Latvala had to endure, with Phil vetoing all his picks. Consider that maybe the reason we got a complete E72 set is BECAUSE Phil didn't listen to any of it...

This post was modified by light into ashes on 2012-12-03 10:53:08

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 3, 2012 8:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

I have also noticed that there are certain shows that he picks from over and over again -- sometimes the same tracks -- while other equally interesting material exists in nearby shows. I would have to imagine that the job has gotten a little dull after all this time, so perhaps he just doesn't spend as much time on it anymore.

Either way, I rarely check the Taper's Section anymore. I learn much more about what to listen to right here.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jack o' Roses Date: Dec 3, 2012 8:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

:)

Thanks
PS just started the 11/19 show before opening this thread; I do that all the time- I start listening to something & find from a recent post that others are doing the same. Anybody else find this happening? Synchronicity in the brainwaves...


This post was modified by Jack o' Roses on 2012-12-03 16:11:48

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dudley Dead Date: Dec 3, 2012 6:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

I suspect with the Taper's section, he is just too busy with the releases, to give it the attention it deserves . And, it may have become more of a chore . He may simply be bored with it . Also, in this era of declining revenues, why concentrate on a feature that "gives the store away", so to speak . I would guess there are voices tell him to take it easy . Who knows .
I would guess that Phil is too busy making new music (new ways to play the old music ). "He not busy being born is busy dying " . I suspect that Weir likes the 89/90 period, not so much because he goes back and carefully listens (I may be wrong) but for the overall optimism and energy, post coma era . AND he really got to strut his stuff ! He was a big Rock Star ,co-fronting a band at the height of its popularity .
To rebut myself , Bob may like that fairly tight presentation of the era . He seemed to not want to dally," let's get to the next song", sort of attitude . Maybe he finds the shorter, more controlled jams of the era,preferable to more expansive ones of the 70's . Post-Garcia he seems to got closer to Phil's concept . So he may indeed like that 89/90 eras music . At least there has been SOME attention to THEIR old music; Dylan, for instance, could give a shit ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Dec 3, 2012 3:18am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

I do place great value on your comments, generally but especially in this case, on what you regard as sloppy maintenance of media. That is something that is done properly or not, and can be an indication, or lack thereof, of purpose or intent.

> Probably several of the subjects in the New Yorker article are wishing they'd said something different! Ain't that the truth!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Dec 3, 2012 1:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

Why should Phil look back? Hell, this past week he played with Warren and Scofield. That has to be more entertaining to hearing his mistakes on stage with a smacked out jerry decades ago... Let the obsessives deal with releases and let him keep on moving on to the next show.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Dec 3, 2012 1:42am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

I hear what you are saying BD and you are right. I was narrowly looking at D.L.'s possible p.o.v. (extrapolating fuzzy hearsay is always a solid business).
I'm not sure Phil needed to publicly state that he hadn't even bothered listening to E '72, since it was an unusually large release in size and band history. What I interpreted as his dismissive attitude caught me off guard.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Dec 3, 2012 7:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

I basically agree with all the comments on what Phil said: of course he has a total right to move on, yes it has a different meaning to him (Jerry, Pig, Brent, his own alcoholism, etc), yes he should have been more diplomatic and said something more like, "I haven't listened to all of it, but it sounds great," etc etc ...

But there's something else, too, which is that a few tidbits were taken from a much longer conversation. We don't actually know what Phil said or what the entire context was or what the body language was.

We do know that writer Nick Paumgarten is extremely skilled and did an impressive job. We also know that he arguably misrepresented clementine's review, characterizing a descriptive phrase ("complete with hip hop beats from Billy K!") as a claim about the origins of hip hop ("... clementinescaboose, who has detected, in Bill Kreutzmann's drum work on Santa Rosa 6/27/69, the roots of hip-hop") because it suited the overall point he was making.

clementine in context:

http://archive.org/details/gd69-06-27.sbd.finney.78.sbeok.shnf

The Phil quote section goes like this:

>When I asked him about last year’s giant Europe ’72 release, he said, “I have to admit, I have not listened to it.”

If he also said he's heard pieces of it, we don't know. We also don't know if he said it dismissively, apologetically, wryly, with annoyance, with humor, whatever.

We do know that Paumgarten has a structure going, writing-wise. He's leading up to the phone call about Levon Helm's life support being turned off. He's presenting a particular truth: that for the people involved this was their life and it's in the past and it was all very long ago (the 60s generation is fading away) and they don't obsess about "Scar Fire," because that's our job.

In context, read with the "particularly curdled look" in reference to something else (the 80s), and with the undertone/subtext of "for the people involved, this is the past," it may come across as dismissive ... but if you take it out of the writer's context, and picture all the possibilities of body language involved, well, all that we really know is that Phil has not sat down and listened to E72. Heck, we don't even know what he said next. Maybe it was "I've heard a few pieces, they sounded great, but I really haven't listened to it." Or maybe it was "If anyone asks me about E72 again I'll throw my beets at them." Who knows?


Something to remember if you're ever interviewed (except by me, of course):

"A writer is always selling someone out."
- Joan Didion, Slouching Towards Bethlehem






This post was modified by AltheaRose on 2012-12-04 03:30:13

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Dec 4, 2012 4:01pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

Manipulated (so easily) again by the Man!

"It's been said that politics (or artist in this case) is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

-R.R. (Junction, what's your Function?)

This post was modified by micah6vs8 on 2012-12-05 00:01:43

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Dec 3, 2012 7:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

Is it "manipulation"? Well, that's the great debate, isn't it? In photography, there's a frame and a point of view. Some things are cut. Same thing with any kind of representative art (including journalism). Heck, same thing with music, painting, theater ...

If he'd just videotaped the interview and posted it all uncut, well, we'd have ... still an artificial circumstance, cuz there'd be a camera present. And it wouldn't be able to say the same thing ...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: micah6vs8 Date: Dec 3, 2012 8:02pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

I know... I know... What is real?
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Dec 3, 2012 9:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

On the other hand, the quote is the quote we have. From the whole conversation, long or short as it may have been, these few quotes are all that were publicly preserved. The writer may have taken lots of quotes out of context, twisted them around for his story, etc - but as far as what we have on record, this quote is what stands for now. (After all there are plenty of Jerry-isms, often quoted out of context, that stand for his Eternal Thoughts...)

There have been some more allegations that the writer was not entirely truthful with his quoting... On the Further/DSO forums there has been some rather hostile discussion of the article, particularly about Eaton's comments on DSO vs. the Dead.
Rob Barraco (DSO member) wrote, "I have to say, I was a fly on the wall during this interview. That guy that wrote the article is a hater. Eaton did not say that. He took everything out of context. What a bunch of horse shit."
Another DSO member, who also strongly disliked the article, wrote on the Philzone forum, "Eaton agreed to an interview with this writer to talk about tapes and his knowledge and involvement in the taping world. The interview took part during the day where I'm sure the interviewer was taking notes. Later that night after the show while kicking back a few beers with this guy, Rob ostensibly said the quotes from the article, and it was at a point when Rob thought the interview was over. He thought he was just hanging out with this guy. The interviewer wasn't taking notes or recording the conversation. It could have only been later when the writer eventually wrote down what he could hope to remember of what Rob actually said and interpret what he thought Eaton meant from this writer's own skewed view point. I'm fairly certain Rob was misquoted on most of his supposed statements."

Which is another way of saying what you're saying!....

This post was modified by light into ashes on 2012-12-04 05:30:17

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Dec 3, 2012 10:10pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

LOL. Classic strategy. That's actually recommended in classes on in-depth feature writing, "New Journalism" style. Seriously. Even the part about beers and not taking notes, which supposedly Truman Capote had down to an art. Personally I think if it's between quote marks, you better have it on tape or in your notebook, but hey, that's just me. And for all we know he dashed into the bathroom and scribbled the "f*ing your girlfriend" quote down frantically. Which Eaton maybe thought was a funny way to describe it after a few beers, and the writer thought was bitter. Ah, the fickle nature of perception.

But really, I'm surprised Eaton was that naive. If you're with a journalist on a story, the journalist isn't ever "off." Now, the reporter might decide to play nice and not write down the great quotes you hand over on a platter after a few beers. But if Eaton didn't say that he wanted the whole evening to be off the record, it wasn't. (I do know of people getting messed over by reporters who say it's off the record and isn't. Which is incredibly unethical. It happened to a friend of mine who was being interviewed by the NY Times. Charming. But if Eaton DIDN'T say it, it was all on the record, legitimately, IMO, and he should have known it.)

Btw, I loved the part about Phil not understanding "Scar Fire." Have you ever heard it called that? It sounds like preppy slang to me, although it might be incredibly common. I don't really know. But I'm imagining old hard-of-hearing Phil hearing the guy say "Do you remember that awesome skerrfur?" and holding up his ear trumpet and asking what the guy said, and the writer scribbles it down (or doesn't) and thinks to himself, "excellent moment! Phil doesn't know Scarlet > Fire!"



This post was modified by AltheaRose on 2012-12-04 06:10:29

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: light into ashes Date: Dec 3, 2012 10:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

"'Scar-Fire?' he repeated, unfamiliar with the shorthand..."

No, I don't think it's the common abbreviation. I vote for preppy slang.
One of the commenters on the "Nick's Picks" page points out:
"I will echo a previous comment: "Scar > Fire" rather than "Scarlet > Fire"? Who in Dead circles says this? This native NYC Deadhead now living in San Francisco for the past 26 years never had heard it before reading your article. Phil Lesh seemed thrown as well by the abbreviation when you spoke to him. He wasn't "unfamiliar with the shorthand" as you state; he just considers it "Scarlet > Fire" like the rest of us."

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AltheaRose Date: Dec 3, 2012 10:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

Or it went like this:

"Scar-Fire?" he repeated, wondering if that was a theater in Scarsdale.

Or, "Scruffier?" he repeated, wondering if that night's show was particularly hairy.

Or, "Scarfer?" he repeated, wondering if it had to do with people who just came to the show for the burritos.

Maybe Weir would have been more up on preppy slang.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Dec 3, 2012 9:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

There are Furthur/DSO forums?That is very funny.I wonder what Phil thinks when he listens to his vocal take on the bands music since Jerry died,or how he would explain the dichotomy of his musical efforts where on the one hand he is trying to play the catalog in a new and evolving manner with an array of different musicians with different ideas on how to play it,balanced against a sad rehashing of the music with a hack tribute band guitarist and Weir.I am always bemused when the remaining members show such disdain for their back catalog,yet they continue to play the same songs in a similar manner,Furthur being a prime example.I really don't care about Billy or Mickey's feelings on the subject,Billy seems like he was in different band from the one we all listen to and Mickey is irrelevant.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Dec 4, 2012 9:24am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

"..... how he would explain the dichotomy of his musical efforts where on the one hand he is trying to play the catalog in a new and evolving manner with an array of different musicians with different ideas on how to play it,balanced against a sad rehashing of the music with a hack tribute band guitarist and Weir."

Exactly.
Phil always speaks with grandeur on what it is he's up to musically but the reality of it never matches up.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Dec 4, 2012 8:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

Yes sir Reade,you would think he is creating new and exciting music as opposed to playing Dark Star -> My Favorite Things ->Dark Star poorly with Trey and Mike Gordon or some limp shit with his marginally talented sons. He should really listen back to the awful stuff he's been a part of since Jerry died,never mind the Europe 72' release.His vocals alone are so offensive as to be shameful,Keith Richards laughs at him.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Dec 5, 2012 8:03am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

"He should really listen back to the awful stuff he's been a part of since Jerry died,never mind the Europe 72' release."
OK- hilarious!

Both he and Weir, at different times, have tried to distinguish in interviews between what they're doing and this whole genre of cover bands. Phil in particular has characterized his efforts as 'reinterpreting' the music, and it always makes me think he's trying to call up the ghost of John Coltrane, or at least the jazz genre, by putting it that way. As a way of selling it.

But the music never bears out, to my ears, this distinction they wish existed between what they're doing and being a cover band. Of course that may be because there isn't one?

Your take on Phil's vocal's is a breath of fresh air. It has seemed like a taboo subject around here. My god what is up with that? It has always puzzled me. I think I get it a little bit dating back to the early days: it was the late sixties, they were making mind-bending music, breaking rules and needed someone on stage to provide the high end of the harmony parts. But after 1969 or so it's just mystifying. Jerry used to love to mention how Phil had 'perfect pitch.' While not deeply steeped in music terminology, I know enough about what that phrase means to suggest it should enable him to listen to tapes and hear himself!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Dec 5, 2012 9:48am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

I simply don't understand how at any point in time he could listen to himself sing and not realize how poor a singer he is,there is not one single instance in the breadth of their career where Phil sings well.I understand they had a need for for someone to sing high end harmonies,but he certainly didn't fit the bill,I can't think of any other band that has someone so ill suited to singing doing harmony vocals.The fact that today he has the nerve to take the lead vocal spot is just perplexing.

I don't so much have a problem with them playing their music however they see fit,I just get bent when they seem to disrespect what was for what they are doing now.I think it's sad that the poor excuse for GD music their current projects are putting out there going to represent their legacy to a generation of people not familiar with the real deal.

I hear you on the whole "reinterpreting" deal,it must be difficult to live in Jerry's shadow and try to play that music without him.Especially since for the most part they fail miserably and produce a weak approximation of what once was special,no matter what the line up or take on the music is.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Dec 5, 2012 11:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

It *is* difficult (or impossible) to play in Jerry's shadow which is why I've never understood why they don't tear a page from his playbook and explore other musical avenues with their outside pursuits.

When Jerry teamed with others the very point was to depart from GD music, and often in bold, adventurous ways. I mean he didn't get with Howard Wales to 'reinterpret' Friend of the Devil. The Old and In the Way thing was to explore an entirely different genre of music, and one very difficult to play. He was pushing himself and growing with his outside ventures. The early JGB lineups featured Merl Saunders of course, who Garcia credited late in his life with teaching him more about music than anybody! The acoustic 1987 JGB and his collaboration with Grisman in the early nineties were strict acoustic adventures though not bluegrass so again, a different genre.

He wasn't passing time with these endeavors (or worse, making cracks about how he needed the extra coin to send his kids to college). They were intentional efforts at musical growth. It's this very example he set that makes his bandmates efforts without him since '95 so hollow.



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Dec 5, 2012 2:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

I don't think Bob or Phil had the creative drive or desire to branch out as much as Jerry did,while Bob had a number of side projects over the years and Phil had the bar band he played a few gigs with during the hiatus their main creative avenue was the GD.

In fairness to Bob and Phil while Jerry was alive there was always a GD,so he was never faced with a situation where he didn't have that outlet to play the GD catalog,so he could focus his outside energies exploring a variety of different styles and music.Presented with a scenario of no GD,I would assume he would still have wanted to perform some of his GD compositions.I think he would have been more successful at puling that off.

As usual UJ52 you come through with the goods.A nice explanation on the definition of the term pitch,tied into why it matters not in relation to Phil's ability to sing or lack thereof,plus a funny and somewhat true comparison to what his vocal sounded like "sheep bleating".

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Reade Date: Dec 5, 2012 3:27pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

While many variables apparently go into whether or not a guy can carry a tune, as UJ52 points out, there has got to be at least some disconnect- or irony at least -involved with a guy who can correctly identify any note played by any instrument at any time (very rare ability as UJ52 also points out) but not be able to hear himself sounding like a farm animal.
To paraphrase Mick, I'm no schoolboy (when it cones to these musical terms) but I know what I hear.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Dec 5, 2012 4:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

Good point,both funny and ironic.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: unclejohn52 Date: Dec 5, 2012 11:07am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

Great posts, I agree with both of you. A lot of non-fans are really put off by Phil's vocals.

As to perfect pitch- that can have a different interpretation. A person with perfect pitch can hear a note played by any instrument, and say, "that's a B flat." And conversely, when told a piece starts on D, can hum or sing that D unaided by any previously heard note. As to Phil's perfect pitch - he may have sung the pitch correctly on many occasions, but screaming or yelling at the mike, his phrasing and overall technique was more akin to a sheep bleating.

People with perfect pitch are extremely rare.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Dec 5, 2012 11:22am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Phil's E72 Quote

"A lot of non-fans are really put off by Phil's vocals"

A LOT of FANS are also really put off by his vocals. I was one of those happy Hampton fools applauding when they broke out Box of Rain, but it sure wasn't for his vocals. The only thing I can really point to other than the studio version of Box of Rain that I like is Pride of Cucamonga.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: patkelleyPA Date: Dec 3, 2012 9:51am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

wow dude, i wouldn't have expected such a nasty summation of phil's GD legacy from you.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 3, 2012 8:31am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

I think that's right. I'd be a lot more worried about Phil if he spent his weekends obsessing about the old days. It might also be a little bit painful/emotional for him to listen to the old days with Jerry (not to mention Pig, Brent and Vince). You've got to remember that Phil is an alcoholic, and moving past that stuff was probably an important step for him.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: scotch_glass Date: Dec 3, 2012 2:24pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Old Taper's Sections on Dead.net

In my haste of excitement I failed to realize how much was missing but when I went to the last page and saw the first one, I simply assumed. Thank you for the links however!

In reference to your other post I agree with your displeasure on the limited nature of the newer releases and, aside from the download series, I am incredibly surprised they have not capitalized and taken advantage of the digital format for any and all releases. I imagine cost and time has a lot to do with why they have not done something. But if they are not digitizing aging reels, whether they are in a temperature controlled vault or not, they are making a mistake. I'm sure there are other legal reasons too but at the very least, if they were to release digital formats of what they already have released as well as future releases, couldn't they set up some sort of secured torrent site where you can purchase the release and then allow the community to share what they bought from others to save on server costs? Not sure if that is possible but with a sharing community like Dead fans are, I think this would be an interesting experiment to see how it would work. I'm sure some would find a way to abuse it but you can't let a few rotten apples ruin the whole bunch.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)